BIS 2013 had very often incredible results for the year 2012 on av-comparatives.org, sometimes reaching 100% on their Real World Test, which is impressive. I double checked on av-test, and they indeed improved their antivirus a lot. They seem to be a little bit over Kaspersky IS 2013 (AV I'm using right now).

Matousec can't be compared to AV-Comparatives. The first is a HIPS/firewall test that doesn't test against malware, the second is test against malware, not test files that Matousec has decided should be blocked to pass their test.

BullGuard always get sub-par results on AV tests despite having the best engines. It is ALWAYS lacking behind Bitdefender's products surprisingly

just read its reviews, they all SUCK

Click to expand...

That's actually not true. I've read many reviews were it was near the top. AVC's most recent RWT had it scoring #2 position, ranking Advanced++ with 3 other products. Also, consider BG2013 hasn't been tested by much of anyone yet, and 2013 has new technologies, and a considerable amount of reworking of the code. I would bet money BG will be a top performer in 2013, if not the top performer. BG2013 is more stable, faster, and has a better FW than BIS, look for yourself.

Most folks don't understand those synthetic tests, much less how to actually test a product properly. For BG to really shine, you need to actually install it, then purposely try to infect a machine. What you will discover is something remarkable, BG blocks roughly 90-100% of the threats before they hit your machine in the HTTP stream. This is very very powerful, and something Bit Defender is not very good at. Keep that in mind.

I respect Languy99's test because they are real-world generally speaking. Bullguard blocked virtually every attempt at infection, and he was 'impressed' by it. But also BG didn't leave any traces for HMP or EmsisoftFree to find, which is rare in his tests; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O5BDnGJPT8

While they are indeed two different kind of tests, the score of each should more or less match. Indeed, in the Real World Test, all of the AV modules are put to the grill, so is the proactive module. When an AV scores high in the real world test, there is high chances that it's proactive module is pretty good. And indeed it is the case for Kaspersky.

I do not understand how BIS 2013 could score a little higher than Kaspersky in Real World Test, and be probably the best (av-test will tell us), but scores FAR below in the Proactive Test, at the opposite. That does not make sense to me.

I cannot imagine a security product having a useless proactive module on one hand, but on the other hand be top noch in security strenght.

I have checked the test setup of the Real World Test, and the tests are done on Windows XP SP3 (no mention of 64 bits). If we assume that Matousec's tests are more or less correct, that could correlate with BIS 2013 being excellent on 32 bits systems (very good score on both 32 bits tests, Real World & Proactive 32bits), but that would also mean that it offers very poor protection on 64 bits systems (I do not say it is the case!).

Unless we have a Real World Test on a 64 bits system, I think it will be hard to know the truth. The good news is that av-comparative is planning to update their test to 64 bits in 2013.

That's actually not true. I've read many reviews were it was near the top. AVC's most recent RWT had it scoring #2 position, ranking Advanced++ with 3 other products. Also, consider BG2013 hasn't been tested by much of anyone yet, and 2013 has new technologies, and a considerable amount of reworking of the code. I would bet money BG will be a top performer in 2013, if not the top performer. BG2013 is more stable, faster, and has a better FW than BIS, look for yourself. [/url]

I would bet money BG will be a top performer in 2013, if not the top performer. BG2013 is more stable, faster, and has a better FW than BIS, look for yourself.
[/url]

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I own BG and it is heavier then BD. It is good but BD seems to finally being able to market the pieces of the puzzle together in a more effective manor. Also, all of their modules are in-house built, where BG basically buys the modules from other vendors and pieces them together.

As far as Top Performer for 2013, nope, I have already designated BD as Top Performer in 2012and 2013. And that aint synthetic.

Also, all of their modules are in-house built, where BG basically buys the modules from other vendors and pieces them together.

Click to expand...

That, I feel is one of the stronger points of BG. Quite honestly, they use the most effective modules they can find. It's also much more difficult to circumvent a variety of different modules from different developers, than it is to circumvent a single sourced set of tools. They'd have to understand how to bypass Commtouch resources, then bypass BD sigs and B-Have, then bypass Novashield, and then finally bypass the inhouse engines BG uses. Not an easy task, and this increases security.

PS: I wouldn't buy it from other vendors to ensure i can get a refund from Bitdefender should anything go wrong and to have the versatility of them being able to modify my license, like upgrading it and such to more users

You asked a valid question. Even though it seems your thread got hijacked by BG vs BD debate, when you have the answer, please do share it with us.

There is a gap of almost a year between the 32bit and 64bit test. Is it possible that BD might have whitelisted the Matousec files? I haven't gone through Matousec's agenda thoroughly but I think the files are not malicious though simulates certain malicious behaviors. Is it enough to trigger the modern day HIPS?

I wish to have a meaningful discussion on this rather than my-rooster-is-bigger-than-your-cat debate.

PS: I wouldn't buy it from other vendors to ensure i can get a refund from Bitdefender should anything go wrong and to have the versatility of them being able to modify my license, like upgrading it and such to more users

You asked a valid question. Even though it seems your thread got hijacked by BG vs BD debate, when you have the answer, please do share it with us.

There is a gap of almost a year between the 32bit and 64bit test. Is it possible that BD might have whitelisted the Matousec files? I haven't gone through Matousec's agenda thoroughly but I think the files are not malicious though simulates certain malicious behaviors. Is it enough to trigger the modern day HIPS?

I wish to have a meaningful discussion on this rather than my-rooster-is-bigger-than-your-cat debate.

Click to expand...

Matousec's files should definitely trigger a proactive defense block, "Active Virus Control" in the case of Bitdefender, and it does if we look at the Proactive Security Challenge 32 bits (Bitdefender scores very good).

It just seems that on a 64 bits OS it might not perform as good as in 32 bits, but it ought to be confirmed by a 64 bits Real World Test (from av-comparatives). Kaspersky 2012 was in that case, very good on 32 bits but very poor on 64 bits, the 2013 version fixed that.